Upload
trinhanh
View
228
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Václav Blažek (Masaryk University of Brno, Czech Republic)
On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: Survey
The purpose of the present study is to confront most representative models of the internal
classification of Indo-European languages and their daughter branches.
0. Indo-European
0.1. In the 19th century the tree-diagram of A. Schleicher (1860) was very popular: Germanic
Lithuanian
Slavo-Lithuaian
Slavic
Celtic
Indo-European Italo-Celtic
Italic
Graeco-Italo-
-Celtic Albanian
Aryo-Graeco- Greek
Italo-Celtic
Iranian
Aryan
Indo-Aryan
After the discovery of the Indo-European affiliation of the Tocharian A & B languages and the
languages of ancient Asia Minor, it is necessary to take them in account. The models of the recent
time accept the Anatolian vs. non-Anatolian (‘Indo-European’ in the narrower sense) dichotomy,
which was first formulated by E. Sturtevant (1942). Naturally, it is difficult to include the relic
languages into the model of any classification, if they are known only from several inscriptions,
glosses or even only from proper names. That is why there are so big differences in classification
between these scantily recorded languages. For this reason some scholars omit them at all.
0.2. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984, 415) developed the traditional ideas: Greek
Armenian
Indo-
Iranian
Balto-
-Slavic
Germanic
Italic
Celtic
Tocharian
Anatolian
0.3. Vladimir Georgiev (1981, 363) included in his Indo-European classification some of the relic
languages, plus the languages with a doubtful IE affiliation at all:
Tocharian
Northern Balto-Slavic
Germanic
Celtic
Ligurian
Italic & Venetic
Western Illyrian
Messapic
Siculian
Greek & Macedonian
Indo-European Central Phrygian
Armenian
Daco-Mysian & Albanian
Eastern Indo-Iranian
Thracian
Southern = Aegean Pelasgian
Palaic
Southeast = Hittite; Lydian; Etruscan-Rhaetic; Elymian
= Anatolian Luwian; Lycian; Carian; Eteocretan
0.4. Eric Hamp proposed his original model of the Indo-European disintegration, including the relic
idioms, based on specific isoglosses in phonology, morphology and lexicon (1990): Luwian
Anatolian Hittite
Indo-Aryan
Nuristanic
Indo- Asiatic Indo-European
-Hittite Iranian
Armenian
Pontic South Indo-European Greek
Indo-European Macedonian
Slavic
Baltic
Residual Thracian
Indo-European
Dacian
Albanian
Prehellenic
= Pelasgic
Germanic
Northwest-
Indo-European Tocharian
Illyrian
Messapic
Phrygian
Venetic
Italic
Celtic
0.5. As the illustration of a realistic application of cladistics can serve D. Ringe, T. Warnow & A.
Taylor (2002, 87): Anatolian
Tocharian
Celtic
Italic
Germanic
Albanian
Armenian
Greek
Indo-Aryan
Iranian
Slavic
Baltic
0.6. The absolute chronology is available only thanks to glottochronology. The most recent result of
Sergei Starostin (Workshop on the chronology in linguistics, Santa Fe 2004) applies his own model of
the ‘recalibrated’ glottochronology, where all borrowings are excluded before any calculation and the
coefficient of changes is empirically recounted to 5% per millennium instead of 14% postulated by
Swadesh.
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
Hittite
Tocharian A
-20 Tocharian B
-4670 Brythonic
-1000
Goidelic
-3810 Italic
-2500
Germanic
-3350 -2860 Baltic
-1210
Slavic
-2710
Iranian
-2000
-3020 Indo-Aryan
Armenian
-2590 Greek
Albanian
1. Indo-Iranian The preliminary result of comparison of Avestan, Vedic, Dardic & Nuristani was proposed by
Hegedűs & Blažek (2010):
-2700 -2200 -1700 -1200
Indo-Aryan Vedic
Indo-Nuristani -1600 Dardic
Indo- -1900 Nuristani
Iranian -2700
Iranian Avestan
1a. Indo-Aryan The only attempt to apply glottochronology for several modern Indo-Aryan languages in confrontation
with Sanskrit was realized by S. Starostin and his team (database 2004):
-1400 -1000 -600 -200 200 600 1000 1400
Sinhalese
Gypsy
Central Parya
100 W. Pahari
-650 400 Lahnda
650 Panjabi
1000 1650 Hindi
-250
Indo- Eastern Bengalese
-Aryan 250 Assamese
-1600 Northwest Nepali
-100 Marathi
200 Sindhi
600 Gujarathi
Vedic Sanskrit Cl. Sanskrit
1b. Dardic The only tree-diagram was constructed by S. Starostin’s team (database 2004):
-1000 -600 -200 200 600 1000
Kashmiri
Shina
Maiya
Bashkarik
Torwali
Wotapuri
Dardic Phalura
Sava
Tirahi
Khowar
Pashai
Kalasha
Gawar
Shumashti
2. Nuristani The first application of glottochronology to Nuristani by Hegedűs & Blažek (2010):
-200 +200 +600 +1000
Prasun
Kati proto-Nuristani 89.0%
68.9% / -160 +840 Ashkun
83.5%
+540 Waigali
91.2%
+960 Tregami
3. Iranian The only attempt to construct the tree-diagram for the Iranian languages was realized by S. Starostin
and his team (Santa Fe 2004).
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Avestan
Wakhi
-490 Ishkashim
Munjan
Iranian 180 Shughni
-1240 Ossetic
Khotan-Saka
-450 Ormuri
-790 -310 Parachi
180 Pashto
Yaghnobi
320 Sogdian
Gilaki
840 Modern
-620 Persian
320 Tati
620 Talysh
270 Kurdic
420 Baluchi
4. Anatolian With exception of Hittite no Anatolian language allows to apply glottochronology for our limited
knowledge of their lexical corpora. That is why the existing classifications are based on combinations
of phonological, morphological and lexical isoglosses. In the recent time these three alternative
models of the internal classification of the Anatolian languages were proposed.
4.1. N. Oettinger 1978, 92 (supplemented on the basis of personal communication in 2001): East Hittite
Palaic
Anatolian Cuneiform
Proto-Luwian Luwian Hieroglyphic
West Pisidic, Sidetic, Carian
Lycian, Milyan
Lydian
4.2. R. Werner (1991, 17) Hieroglyphic Luwian
South Anatolian Cuneiform Luvian
Milyan
Anatolian Lycian
Palaic
Hittite
Lydian
4.3. C. aan de Wiel <http://iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl/pie/ielangs/anatolian.html> Hittite
Hittite-Palaic Palaic
Anatolian Luwian
Sidetic
Southeast Anatolian Pisidic
Lycian, Milyan
Carian
Lydian
5. Greek The most detailed scheme classifying the Greek dialects was proposed by A. Bartoněk on the basis of
phonology and morphology (1987, 104; 2003, 494):
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 B.C.
dialects
Elis
Laconia
Proto- C. Crete
Doric E. Crete Doric proper
islands
W. Argolis
E. Argolis
Megaris Saronic
West Greek Corinth
Phocis
Locris Northwest
Aetolia
Boeothia
W. Thessalia
Protoaeolic E. Thessalia Aeolic
Lesbos
Arcadia
Achaean Mycenaean Pamphylia Arcado-
Cyprus -Cypriote
East Greek Attica
Euboia
Protoionic I. Ionia Ionic-Attic
AM. Ionia
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 B.C.
Abbreviations: AM Asia Minor, C. Central, E. East, I. Insular, W. West.
The application of the ‘recalibrated’ glottochronology gives almost the same result, dating the
disintegration of West and East Greek to the 38th cent. BP (Blažek 2010).
Note: Greek can be classified as one of the Hellenic languages, together with Phrygian / Brygian,
ancient Macedonian, and perhaps also Messapic, if the hypothesis of M. Huld (1995, 147-55; cf. also
Blažek 2009b) is accepted. Unfortunately, the lexical corpora do not allow any quantification.
6. Paleo-Balkanian Extremously poor data and their ambiguous interpretations lead to various hypotheses. The present
author finds as probable following: In Prehellenic = Pelasgian the Lautverschiebung operated; the
language was of the centum-type (Hamp) rather than of satem-type (Georgiev). If Thracian &
Bithynian were satem-languages with Lautverschiebung, their closer relation with Armenian is
expectable (so Kortlandt 1988). Albanian is a descendant of Illyrian, both the satem-languages. The
change *gw > b (Pisani 1957) in Dacian indicates more probably the centum-type, regarding the
complementarity of the *k : *kw and *k : *k’ distinction (similarly Witczak, p.c.).
7. Italic 7.0. The ancient Italic languages are only fragmentarily recorded, naturally with exception of Latin.
For this reason, their classification cannot use the lexicostatistic methods and so only the qualitative
analysis of phonology bring some results. The present model does not reflect any grade of a mutual
relationship.
Wallace (1984, 123-51) discusses five scenarios of classification of the Osco-Umbrian languages:
(A) Planta 1892; Sommer 1948; Krahe 1966. (B) Palmer 1954. (C) Buck 1928; Kent 1945. (D) Poultney 1951; Durante 1978. (E) Conway 1897.
Volscian Umbrian
Umbrian
Vestinian Volscian
Oscan Marrucinian Marsian
(A) (B) Oscan Paelignian (C) Sabellian Vestinian
Sabellian Oscan Marrucinian
Paelignian
Volscian Umbrian
Oscan
Aequian Umbrian
Marsian
Umbrian Volscian Volscian
Umbrian (E)
(D) Oscan
Vestinian
Oscan Marrucinian Oscan Marrucinian
Paelignian North Vestinian
Oscan Oscan Paelignian
Synthesis of contemporary views on the classification of the Italic languages:
The following model (Urbanová & Blažek 2008, 34) represents an attempt to find a synthesis based
on conclusions of various scholars, who are in agreement in a close position of Venetic to the Latino-
Faliscan branch, with the idea of H. Rix (2002, 3-9) about an internal structure of the Osco-Umbrian
branch. The constitution of a special Ausonian-Sicilian branch is based on a witness of the antique
authors, documenting that in past the Siculians-Ausonians were pushed away from Italy for Sicily
(Thukydides; Dionysius Halicarnassensis referring to Hellanicus; see Schmoll 1958, 96). The change
*kw > p assumed for Siculic connects the hypothetical Ausonian-Sicilian branch with the Osco-
Umbrian languages.
Venetic
North Faliscan
*kw > kv/qu Latino-Faliscan
Latin
Umbrian
North =
= Macro-Umbrian Aequian
Marsian
Volscan
South Picenian
Italic =
Osco-Umbrian Central = Sabine (glosses)
= Sabellian = Macro-Sabinian
Pre-Samnian, including
Oinotrian
Paelignian
Marrucinian
Vestinian
Frentanian
Larinatian
South South = Samnitian
*kw > p = Macro-Oscan Hirpinian
Hernician
Sidicinian
Oscan
Ausonian &
Auruncian
Ausonian-Sicilian
Siculian
Note: Rix (2002) differentiated the following local varieties of Oscan: from Capua, Pompeie, Cetera Campania, Central
Oscan, Lucania & Bruttium, Messina.
7A. Romance On the other hand, the lexical material of the Romance languages served for determination of the
basic constants in glottochronology. Let us confront several models of their disintegration:
7A.1. Suzanne Fleischman. The Romance Languages, in: William Bright (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 3. Oxford: University Press 1992, 339:
Balkano-Romance Rumanian.
East Romance Dalmatian
Italo-Dalmatian Italian
Sardinian
Proto-Romance Rhaeto-
-Romance
Gallo-Romance French
Occitanian
West Romance Catalanian
Ibero-Romance Spanish
Galician
Portuguese
7A.2. Joseph E. & Barbara F. Grimes 1996, 57-58. Istro-Rumanian
North Daco-Rumanian
East Arumanian
South Megleno-
-Rumanian
Dalmatian
Italo- Italian dialects
-Romance (incl. Friulian)
Ligurian
Lombardian
Romansch
Gallo- Rhaeto- Ladin
-Romance -Romance
Proto-Romance Italo-West Piemontese
Franco-ProvenIal
French
West Occitan dialects
East Catalan
Central Spanish dialects
Galician
Ibero- West Portuguese
-Romance South Mozarabian
South Corsic
South Sardinian dialects
7A.3. Merritt Ruhlen 1987, 326: Istro-Rumunian
Rumunian
East Arumunian
Megleno-Rumunian
Dalmatian
Italo-Romance Italian
Continental Friulian
Raeto-Romance Ladinish
Romansch
West Franco-ProvenIal
Galo-Romance French
Proto- Occitan
-Romance
Gallo-Ibero- Catalanian
-Romance Spanish
Ibero- Galician
-Romance Portugal
Mozarabian
Insular Sardinian
7A.4. It is natural that glottochronology was also applied for Romance languages. Let us confront two
attempts from the recent time:
Embleton (1986, 142):
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
Rumanian
Rumantsch
206
Friulian
703 Italian
898 French
984 Catalan
1144 Spanish
1551 Portuguese
7A.5. Starostin (Santa Fe 2004):
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
Rumanian
Italian
Romance 960 French
570 1390 Provençal
Catalan
Spanish
1220 Portuguese
1390 Galician
8. In the area between Italic and Celtic there were at least two relic languages which could form a
closer unit in the genealogical sense: Ligurian and Lusitanian, former reconstructed on the basis of
proper names attested by classical authors in northern Italy, latter known from several inscriptions
written in the Latin alphabet, discovered in south Portugal and Spain (cf. Urbanová & Blažek 2008,
178-81; Witczak 2005; Blažek 2006).
9. Celtic There are two alternative models of disintegration of the Celtic languages.
9.1. The first model has to reflect the opposition between the insular and continental languages. It is
defended e.g. by W. Cowgill (1975) or P. Schrijver (1995, 463).
Goidelic
Insular
Brythonic
Celtic
Gaulish & Lepontic
Continental
Celtiberian
9.2. The alternative and more traditional model is based on the q/p-isogloss in the reflexes of the Indo-
European labiovelar *kw. The figures for living languages (plus Cornish) and the age of the divergence
of Goidelic vs. Brythonic were calculated by S. Starostin and his team (Santa Fe 2004). The positions
of other nodes indicated by question marks represent only rough assessments:
-1000 -600 -200 200 600 1000
Celtiberian
*kw > q
? Irish
Goidelic 900 Gaelic
Manx
Celtic Pictish
-1100
? Cumbrian
Brythonic ? Welsh
370 Cornish
*kw > p 1020 Breton
?
Gaulish
Lepontic
9.3. Applying the Starostin’s approach with one modification, namely the systematic inclusion
of synonyms for all sufficiently described languages, i.e. all Goidelic, Brythonic, plus Gaulish,
the internal structure of the Celtic tree diagram is in principle the same, the differences occur
only in details. Let us mention that the time depth of the divergence of Gaulish vs. Brythonic
(1000 BC) is practically the same as Goidelic vs. Gaulish-Brythonic (Novotná & Blažek 2006,
91; Blažek 2009a):
-1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200
Gaelic
Goidelic 700 Manx
1025
Irish
Celtic Welsh
-1100
Brittonic 810 Cornish
1150
Breton
-1000
Gaulish
10. Germanic
The best summarization of various ideas concerning the classification of the Germanic
languages is the study of W. Mańczak (1992; cf. also Blažek & Pirochta 2004).
10.1. J.Ch. Adelung (1806) divided the Germanic languages into two branches: Scandinavian
non-Suevic
Frisian, Frankish, Saxon, Anglosaxon
Germanic
Suevic Langobardic, Alamanic, Suevic,
Gothic, Burgundian, Vandalic
10.2. Similarly J. Grimm (1819) operated with the binary classification. For some of the tribal
dialects he supposed the transit character, viz. Frisian & Anglian (1-2), Frankish (2-3), Quadic
& Marcomanic (3-4). Alternatively he assumed the opposition of East Germanic vs. others.
Scandinavian Nordic
1)
2) Low German Saxon, Westfalian, Frisian, Anglosaxon
Germanic
High German Langobardic, Burgundian, Bavarian, Alamanic, Frankish
3)
4) Gothic, Gepidic, Herulic, Vandalic
10.3. Applying his original method based on the lexicostatistic analysis of parallel texts,
Mańczak (1992) formulated a similar conclusion. He ordered the languages decliningly
according their relationship with Gothic: the closest has to be Old High German, further Old
Saxon, finally Scandinavian languages.
10.4. Another model of the binary classification was presented by K. Müllenhoff (1898): Nordic
East Germanic
Gothic.
Germanic
Urdeutsch
West Germanic
Anglo-Frisian
10.5. The most frequent model divides the Germanic languages into three branches: East,
North and West. The author of the following classification is J. Schmidt (1860): North Nordic
Frisian
Low German Anglosaxon
in a wider sense Dutch
German West Saxon Old Saxon Low German
(Plattdeutsch)
High German
(Hochdeutsch)
East Gothic
10.6. F. Maurer (1943) tried to depict the development from the tribal Germanic dialects to
the languages of the late middle age and present time, including the convergent processes: Hessenic
Weser-
Istveonic -Rhine _ _ Frankish
Saxon
North Sea Anglosaxon
Angelian
Ingveonic
Frisian
Germanic _ _ _ _ _ _ German
Nordic Scandinavian
Illevionic
Vistula- Gothic, etc.
-Odra
Langobardic
Erminonic
Elbe Bavarian
Alamanic
10.7. E. Schwarz (1951) assumed that c. 200 B.C. the Germanic language continuum was already
divided into the North zone, generating the later Scandinavian languages and Gothic, and the South
zone, where the later German dialects were formed. About 4 cent. later the third, transit zone,
cristalized, developing in the languages of Angels and Frisians. Gothic-Vandalic
North
Nordic
Anglosaxon
Germanic North Sea
Frisian
South German
10.8. The most detailed scheme of the development of the Germanic languages was proposed by T.V.
Toporova (2000), inspired by Maurer and Schwartz:
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Crimean Gothic
Ostrogothic
Gothic Visigothic
Gepidic
East Burgundian
N Germ. Vandalic
Herulic Old Icelandic Icelandic
G Rugian_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Norn
e Faeroese
r W Nor. dial. Nynorsk
m. Old Norwegian E Nor. dial. Riksm0l / Bokm0l
W Scand.
Danish
Common Scandinavian O Danish
E Scand. Swedish
G O Swedish M Swedish
e O Gutnic
r
m M Scottish Scottish dialect
a dialect of Angels English
n O English M English
i dialect of Iutians Frisian
c Ingv. O Frisian
Saxon Afrikaans
S Dutch
o OL Frankish M Dutch
u
t L German dial.
h Old Saxon ML German Yidish
G
e Istv. Luxembourgeois
r M Frankish WC German dial.
m Rhine Frankish
a EC German dial.
n Thüringish i
c _ E. Franskish
Bavarian S German dial.
Erm. Alamanic Swiss
Langobardic
Abbreviations: C Central, dial. dialect, E East, Erm. Erminonic, Germ. Germanic, Ingv. Ingveonic, Istv.
Istveonic, L Low, M Middle, Nor. Norwegian, O Old, S South, Scand. Scandinavian, W West.
10.9. E. Antonsen (1975) assumed the opposition of the east and northwest branches:
North
Northwest
Old Runic West
Germanic
East Gothic
10.10. H. F. Nielsen (2000) returned to the traditional idea, identifying in Old Runic a direct ancestor
only of the Scandinavian languages:
Old High German
West Germanic Old Saxon
North Sea
Old Frisian
Northwest Germanic
Old English
Old Runic Old Norse
A.D. 100 200 300 400 500 600
10.11. For her classification of the Germanic languages Sheila Embleton (1986, 117) used her
modification of glottochronology:
100 n. l. 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700
Swedish
1531 Danish
1812 Norwegian
873 Faeroese
1047 Islandic
189 English
Frisian
Vlamish
264 1236 Afrikaans
1425 1664 Dutch
143 Yidish
Low
1224 German
1379 High
German
Gothic
10.12. The most recent attempt to classify the Germanic languages was published by Starostin &
Burlak (2001, 82-105). They applied Starostin’s recalibrated glottochronology for 7 literary living
languages and Gothic.
-100 +100 +300 +500 +700 +900 +1100 +1300 +1500 Swedish
98%
94% +1550 Danish
89-91% +1200 Nynorsk
+1000
Icelandic
73%
+70 English
80%
70% +400 Dutch
-80 93%
+1120 High
German Gothic
11. Baltic
According to tradition, the Baltic languages are divided into the west part represented by Old
Prussian, from c. 1700 extinct, and eastern part, represented by the living languages,
Lithuanian and Latvian. But the Baltic dialectology was much more complex a millennium
ago. The following model was proposed by V. Mažiulis (1981): Zemgalian
North periphery Selian
Couronian
Latvian
Baltic Central
Lithuanian
Yatvingian
South periphery Prussian
Galindian
The first serious application of the classical glottochronology was used by Lanszweert (1984,
xxxii-xxxvii), who has found 58,6% for Prussian vs. Lithuanian and 55,2% for Prussian vs.
Latvian. The results of Girdenis & Mažiulis (1994, 9) are lower: 68% Lithuanian vs. Latvian,
49% Lithuanian vs. Prussian, 44% Latvian vs. Prussian. Starostin (Santa Fe 2004 and p.c.,
June 2005) dated the separation of Lithuanian and Latvian to 80 B.C., Lithuanian and the
‘Dialect of Narew’ to 30 B.C., Latvian and the ‘Dialect of Narew’ to 230 B.C. The position of
Prussian in his calculations is rather strange, it has to be closer to Slavic than to Baltic.
Novotná & Blažek (2007, 205), calculating the synonyms too, have reached the following
results:
-1400 -1000 -600 -200 +200 +600
Latvian
84.8%
+600 Lithuanian
76.3%
+190 ‘Dialect of Narew’
56% / 58%
-830 / -730 Prussian
46.7%
-1400
Common Slavic
The double-result 58/56% for Prussian vs. other Baltic languages reflects the calculation without /
with the ‘Dialect of Narew’. The score 43% between Prussian and the ‘Dialect of Narew’ (Pogańske
gwary z Narewu; see Zinkevičius 1984) in confrontation with 62% and 55.2% for Prussian vs.
Lithuanian and Prussian vs. Latvian respectively, excludes the identification of the ‘Dialect of Narew’
with the historical Yatwingians, known from the Middle Ages, if their language had to be connected
with the other Baltic idioms of the southern periphery, including Prussian. Regarding this big
difference, it seems better to accept the explanation of Schmid (1986) who identified in the ‘Dialect
of Narew’ a strong influence of Northeast Yiddish, spoken in the big cities of Lithuania and Latvia,
hence the hybrid East Baltic - German idiom.
12. Slavic 12.1. According to the traditional model the Slavic languages are divided into three parts (cf. e.g. J. &
B. Grimes 1996, 58):
Russian
East Slavic Belorussian
Ukrainian & Rusyn
Polish
Lechitic Kašubian
Pomerian Slovincian
Polabian
Slavic West Slavic Sorbian Lower Sorbian
Upper Sorbian
Czech-Slovak Czech
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbo-Croatian
South Slavic
Macedonian
Bulgarian
12.2. The classification of the Slavic languages by Starostin (Santa Fe 2004), using his recalibrated
glottochronology, is revolutionary in both topology and chronology:
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Macedonian
South Slavic
1000 Bulgarian
Russian
East Slavic Ukrainian
800
130 1390 Belorussian
Polabian
Upper Lusatian
270 840
1300 Lower Lusatian
420 Polish
West Slavic
780 Slovak
960 Czech
670
Slovenian
1080 Serbian
12.3. Using the principles of Starostin’s recalibration of glottochronology, Novotná & Blažek (2007,
201) proposed another model of the internal grouping of the Slavic languages which seems to be in
better agreement with historical data and archaeological research:
81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99%
Russian
Ukrainian
1070 1630 Belorussian
Polish &
Kashubian
520 1020 Lower Lusatian
1630 Upper Lusatian
900 Slovak
1390 Czech
750 Polabian
Slovenian
1390 Serbo-Croatian
1020
Macedonian
1220 Bulgarian
13. Tocharian The beginning of the disintegration between Tocharian A and B can be dated to c. 400 BC according
to the glottochronological test (Blažek & Schwarz 2008: §8, Appendix 1).
References: Adelung, J.Ch. 1806. Älteste Geschichte der Deutschen, ihrer Sprache und Litteratur, bis zur Völkerwanderung.
Leipzig: Göschen.
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1965. On Defining Stages in Prehistoric Germanic. Language 41, 19-36.
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1994. The earliest attested Germanic language, revisited . NOWELE 23, 41-68.
Bartoněk, Antonín. 1987. Prehistorie a protohistorie řeckých dialektů. Brno: Univerzita J.E. Purkyně.
Bartoněk, Antonín. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg: Winter.
Blažek, Václav. 1993. Po stopách indoevropské pravlasti. Slovo a slovesnost 54, 31-40.
Blažek, Václav. 2006. Lusitanian language. Studia minora facultatis philosophicae universitatis Brunensis /
Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, N 11, 2006, 5-18.
Blažek, Václav. 2009a. On the position of Gaulish within Celtic from the point of view of glottochronology.
Indogermanische Forschungen 114, 257-299.
Blažek, Václav. 2009b. On Messapic Declension. Linguistique Balkanique / Balkansko ezikoznanie 47/1, 2009,
87-92.
Blažek, Václav. 2010. Glottochronogical analysis of the Greek lexicon: Modern, Tsakonian, Old and Mycenaean
Greek. Graeco-Latina Brunensia 15, 2010, 11-29.
Blažek, Václav & Pirochta, David. 2004. Severozápadní germánština a její místo v klasifikaci germánských
jazyků. lexikostatistická analýza apelativní slovní zásoby nejstarších runových nápisů. Linguistica
Brunensia (Sborník prací Filozofické univerzity brněnské univerzity) A 52, 13-35.
Blažek, Václav & Schwarz, Michal. 2008. Tocharians. Who they were, where they came from and where they
lived. Lingua Posnaniensis 50, 47-74.
Buck, Carl D. 1928. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Boston: Ginn.
Burlak, Svetlana A. & Starostin, Sergei A. 2001. Vvedenie v lingvističeskuju komparatistiku. Mockva: MGU-
RGGU.
Coleman, Robert. 1986. The Central Italic Languages in the Period of Roman Expansion. Transactions of
Philological Society 1986, 100-131.
Conway, Robert S. 1897. The Italic dialects, 1-2. Cambridge: University Press.
Cowgill, Warren. 1975. The Origins of the Insular Celtic Conjunct and Absolute Verbal Endings. In: Flexion und
Wortbildung, ed. H. Rix et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 40-70.
Durante, Marcello. 1978. I dialetti medio-italici, in: Popoli e civiltà delľ Italia, ed. M.Cristofani et al. Roma,
793-820.
Embleton, Sheila. 1986. Statistics in historical linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1992. The Romance Languages, in: William Bright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of
Linguistics, vol. 3. Oxford: University Press.
Gamkrelidze, Tamas & Ivanov, Vjačeslav. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. Tbilisi: Izdateľstvo
Tbilisskogo univerziteta.
Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1981: Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages. Sofia: Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences.
Girdenis, Aleksas & Mažiulis, Vytautas. 1994. Baltų kalbų divergencinė chronologija. Baltistica 27/2, 4-12.
Gray, Russell D. & Atkinson, Quentin, D. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of
Indo-European origin. Nature 426, 435-439.
Grimm, Jacob. 1819. Deutsche Grammatik, I. Göttingen: Dietrich.
Grimes Joseph E. & Barbara F. 1996. Ethnologue. Language Family Index to the 13th Edition of the
Ethnologue. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hamp, Eric P. 1990. The Pre-Indo-European Language of Northern (Central) Europe. In: When Worlds Collide:
The Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Europeans, eds. T.L. Markey & J.A.C. Greppin. Ann Arbor:
Karoma, 291-309.
Hegedűs, Irén & Blažek, Václav. 2010. On the position of Nuristani within Indo-Iranian. Paper presented at the
conference Sound of Indo-European 2 (Opava, Oct 2010).
Huld, Martin. 1995. Grassmann’s Law in Messapic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 23, 147-155.
Hutterer, Claus J. 1975. Die germanische Sprachen. Ihre Geschichte in Grundzügen. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Kent, Roland G. 1945. The sounds of Latin. Baltimore: Waverly Press.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1988. The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift. Linguistique Balkanique 31, 71-74.
Krahe, Hans. 1966. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, I. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Krause, Wolfgang. 1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Winter.
Kuhn, Hans. 1955. Zur Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche
Literatur 86/1, 1-47.
Lanzswert, Rene. 1984. Die Rekonstruktion des Baltischen Grundwortschatzes. Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New
York: Lang.
Makaev, Enver A.. 1962a. Ponjatije obščegermanskogo jazyka i jego periodizacija. In: SGGJa I, 114-124.
Makaev, Enver A. 1965. Jazyk drevnejšich runičeskich nadpisej. Moskva: Nauka.
Mańczak, Witold. 1992. De la préhistoire des peuples indo-européenns. Kraków: Seszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 1048, Prace Jêzykoznawcze, Zeszyt 110.
Markey, Tom. 1976. Germanic Dialect Grouping and the Position of Ingvaeonic. Innsbruck: IBS.
Maurer, Fridrich. 1943/1952. Nordgermanen und Alemannen. Studien zur germanischen und frühdeutschen
Sprachgeschichte, Stammes- und Volkskunde. Bern: Francke.
Mažiulis, Vytautas. 1981. Apie senovės vakarų baltus bei jų santykius su slavais, ilirais ir germanais. In: Iš
lietuvių etnogenezės. Vilnius: Mokslas, 5-11.
Müllenhoff, K. 1900. Deutsche Altertumskunde, IV. Berlin: Weidmann.
Nielsen, Hans F. 1989. The Germanic Languages. Origins and early Dialectal Interrelations. London -
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Nielsen, Hans F. 2000. The Early Runic Language of Scandinavia. Studies in Germanic Dialect Geography.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Novotná, Petra & Blažek, Václav. 2005. Glottochronologie a její aplikace pro slovanské jazyky. Sborník prací
Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity A 53, 51-81.
Novotná, Petra & Blažek, Václav. 2006. On application of glottochronology for Celtic languages. Sborník prací
Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity A 54, 71-100.
Novotná, Petra & Blažek, Václav. 2007. Glottochronology and its application to the Balto-Slavic languages (I).
Baltistica 42/2, 185-210.
Oettinger, Norbert. 1978. Die Gliederung des anatolischen Sprachgebietes. KZ 92, 74-92.
Palmer, Leonard R. 1954. The Latin Language. London: Faber & Faber.
Pisani, Vittorio. 1957. Thrakisches. KZ 75, 76-79.
von Planta, Robert. 1892. Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte, I. Strassburg: Teubner.
Poultney, James W. 1951. Volscians and Umbrians. American journal of Philology 72, 113-127.
Poultney, James W. 1959. The bronze tables of Iguvium. Philadelphia: American Philological Association
(Philological monographs 18).
Rexová, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavý, J. 2003. Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on
lexicostatistical data. Cladistics 19/2, 120-127.
Ringe, Don, Warnow, Tandy & Taylor, Ann. 2002. Indo-European and computional cladistics. Transactions of
the Philological Society 100/1, 59-129.
Rix, Helmut 2002. Sabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A Guide to the World’s Languages, 1: Classification. Stanford: University Press.
Schleicher, August. 1860. Die Deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: Cotta.
Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1986. Die ,,Germanismen‘‘ im sog. Polnisch-Jatvinischen Glossar. Indogermanische
Forschungen 91, 273-286.
Schmidt, Johann. 1890. Die Urheimat der Indogermanen und das europäische Zahlsystem. Berlin:
Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin 1890/2.
Schmoll, Ulrich 1958. Die vorgriechische Sprachen Siziliens. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schrijver, Peter. 1995. Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology. Rodopi: Amsterdam-Atlanta.
Schwarz, Ernst. 1951. Goten, Nordgermanen, Angelsachsen. Bern: Francke.
SGGJa Sravnitel’naja grammatika germanskich jazykov, I-IV, ed. M.M. Guchman. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo
Akademii nauk SSSR 1962.
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1948. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Starostin, Sergei. 2000. Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatistics. In: Time Depth in Historical
Linguistics, Vol. 1, eds. C. Renfrew, A. McMahon & L. Trask. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, 223-266.
Toporova, Tat’jana V. 2000. Germanskie jazyki. In: Jazyki mira: Germanskie jazyki. Keľtskie jazyki. Moskva:
Academia, 13-43.
Van der Staatj, Robert Johannes 1995. A Reconstruction of Proto-Italic. Leiden: PhD. Diss.
Wallace, Rex E. 1984. The Sabellian Languages. Ohio State University: PhD. Diss.
Werner, Rudolf. 1991. Kleine Einführung ins Hieroglyphen-Luwische. Freiburg (Schweiz): Univ.-Verlag /
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Witczak, Krzysztof T. 2005. Język i religia Luzytanów. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Zinkevičius, Z. 1984. Poľsko-jatvjažskij slovarik? Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija 1983, 3-29.
Václav Blažek
Ryneček 148
26101 Příbram III
Czech Republic